ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America’s Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

October 12, 2000

ALERT: Interview — Richard Stevens author of “Dial 911 and Die”

The Self-Defense Files: Dial 911 and Die
by Robert A. Waters

Posted: 10.11.00

I recently conducted an online interview with Richard Stevens,
Attorney at Law, author of “Dial 911 and Die.” The book was
published by Mazel Freedom Press, Inc., in 1999. Go to
http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm if you’d like more
information about this book.

To say that “Dial 911 and Die” is one of the most important
pro-freedom books of the year is an understatement.

In the interview, Stevens wrote, “When it comes to self-defense,
people must not give up their personal right to arms to the same
government that owes them no duty of self-protection.” And that
is the premise of the book–hundreds of court cases have
established the principle that law enforcement agencies do not
exist to protect individuals. Therefore, Stevens argues, it is
criminal for cities, states, and the Federal government to pass
gun control laws which take away the individual’s right to
protect himself or herself.

Stevens graduated magna cum laude from the University of San
Diego School of Law. He taught for several years at the law
schools of George Washington University and George Mason
University. Currently, he specializes in preparing trial court
motions and appellate court briefs in Washington, D. C. Stevens
is also Editor of the Firearms Sentinel, a publication of Jews
for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

RW — Do you think the average American realizes that most law
enforcement agencies cannot be successfully sued?

RS — Many people have never thought about it. That is why it
shocks most people to learn this truth, and sometimes it takes
a while for the enormity of the facts to set in.

RW — I look at your book as a wake-up call to America. If
government can’t protect citizens, we have to protect ourselves.
Do you agree?

RS — I agree, but I put it the other way around. We have the
right and duty to protect ourselves and our loved ones. The
police cannot guarantee our safety, and they often cannot prevent
crimes. Meanwhile, the law says the police don’t have to protect
us as individuals.

RW — I like the fact that you used real-life stories to
illustrate points you wished to make. How did you locate the
cases you wrote about?

RS — There are two main sources of the law: the statutes enacted
by state legislatures, and state appellate court decisions. There
are standard references and legal encyclopedias that I used to get
started. From the standard references, the legal encyclopedias
and digests of cases, I located the court cases.

After reading the cases, I used the Shepard’s Citations books
to discover whether the cases were still in force or had been
reversed or overturned. If the cases are still valid statements
of law, then they were used in the book.

RW — Which cases affected you most (of those you wrote about)?

RS — Hartzler vs. City of San Jose (California). This one
completely shocked me. In law school, we had been learning
how manufacturers owe legal duties to buyers of products to be
sure the products are safe; how landlords owe legal duties to
tenants to protect them from foreseeable criminal attacks; and
how homeowners owe legal duties to make sure that visitors
don’t trip and fall on their property.

Then we turned the page and found that governments owe no legal
duty to do the one thing that you’d think they are supposed to
do: protect citizens from criminal attack.

Another case that really bothered me was the DeShaney Case in
Wisconsin. The county welfare authorities placed a young boy
with an abusive father who tortured and beat him until he was
permanently mentally damaged and had to be institutionalized.
There were lots of warning signs and the county case worker saw
tons of evidence that the child was being abused, yet the case
worker failed to intervene. The Supreme Court ruled that the
Constitution does not require states to protect their citizens,
such as this young boy.

While I have to agree with the court’s decision on strict legal
grounds in this case, I was horrified by the larger moral issue:
why can the government agency charged with protecting children
escape legal liability for failing to carry out that duty–when
a homeowner can be successfully sued if a would-be burglar trips
and falls on the owner’s property?

In another case, Ford vs. Town of Grafton (Massachusetts), a
woman got a restraining order to protect herself from a crazed
violent ex-boyfriend. But the police didn’t enforce it and the
boyfriend attacked her and nearly killed her. This case is
particularly appalling because the police actually advised the
woman to “get a gun” since they couldn’t protect her. The court
in that rabidly anti-firearms state later used the “get a gun”
warning against her. The court said that the police adequately
warned her and therefore had no duty to protect her.

RW — At the end of the book, you’ve included a chapter entitled,
“Forty-five stories with a happy ending.” Why?

RS — To show that citizens can successfully protect themselves
using firearms, and that guns do save and protect lives.

RW — What would you like for readers to take away from your
book?

RS — That you are responsible for your own protection. If you
give up your right to armed self-defense and accept a telephone
number for protection, then you trust a system that legally owes
you nothing.

The book also gives you the tools to confront gun control
advocates. Citizens must ask the hard questions: “Mr. Mayor,
the law says that the government and the police have no duty
to protect me and my family from criminal attack. Why do you
want to make it harder for me to obtain and use firearms with
your ‘gun control’ proposals when you aren’t legally responsible
to protect me?”

RW — Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed. I highly recommend
your book. It is a great read, and provides a harsh dose of
reality to those who would accept gun restrictions. It also
provides a compelling rationale for opposing the gun-banners.

Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include
the name of our site, the author, and our URL.
www.SierraTimes.com

All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are
copyright 2000 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)

* * *

That URL again: http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm

Forwarded by The Liberty Crew

================================================================
Copyright 2000 JPFO, Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce
this alert in full, so long as the following JPFO contact
information is included:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: 1-262-673-9745
Orders only: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: 1-262-673-9746
Web: http://www.jpfo.org/